Mineral Area Development Autho Vs. Premanand Tiwari - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/110625
CourtJharkhand High Court
Decided OnJul-24-2017
AppellantMineral Area Development Autho
RespondentPremanand Tiwari
Excerpt:
1 in the high court of jharkhand at ranchi w.p.(l) no. 4886 of 2008 ­­­­­ mineral area development authority, dhanbad, a body corporate  constituted under bihar coal mining area development authority  act, 1986 having its head office at luby circular road, p.o. & p.s.­ dhanbad,   town   &   district­dhanbad,   through   its   managing  director   namely,   md.   badruzzaman   ansari,   son   of   late   abdul  ghaffar  ansari,   resdient of mada bunglow, l.c. road, hirapur,  dhanbad, p.o., p.s., town & district­dhanbad  … petitioner versus premanand tiwari, son of late ram ganesh tiwari, resident of  mauza­j.c. malick road, p.s.­hirapur, p.o. & district­dhanbad. at  present   posted   as   khalasi   under   mineral   area   development  authority, dhanbad ...  … respondent ­­­­­ coram: hon'ble mr. justice rajesh shankar  ­­­­­ for the petitioner­mada : mr. bhawesh kumar, advocate   mr. ravi kumar, advocate      for respondent­workman  : mr. ajay kumar singh, advocate       ­­­­­ order no. 06 dated: 24.07.2017 heard the learned counsels for the parties.  2. the   present   writ   petition   has   been   filed   by   the  petitioner for quashing the award dated 08.02.2008 passed by the  learned presiding officer, labour court dhanbad in reference no.  2 of 2000, whereby  the petitioner­management has been directed  to make payment of difference of salary for the post of english  typist   and   khalasi   to   the   respondent­workman   for   the   period  between 1985 and 1992 during which he had worked as english  typist on temporary/adhoc basis, although he was appointed on  the   grade­iv   post   of   khalasi   under   mineral   area   development  authority.   3. the   factual   background   of   the   case   is   that   the  workman/respondent was appointed in class­iv post of khalasi in  the   year  1983.  subsequently, vide office order no. 20/1985­86,  the management directed the respondent to perform the duty of  2 english typist for three months or till the further order, however,  with a condition that he would not be paid any additional salary.  thereafter,   the   respondent   worked   as   english   typist   from  11.10.1985   to   03.10.1986,   13.06.1988   to   05.10.1989   and  08.10.1991 to 17.12.1992, but he was paid the salary of khalasi.  subsequently, vide office order dated 04.09.1998, the respondent  was sent back to the post of khalasi. the respondent, thereafter,  raised an industrial dispute which was referred by the appropriate  government   to   the   learned   labour   court,   dhanbad   vide  notification   no.   7/shrama­d­31011/99/l&e­666   dated  28.12.1999 which was numbered as reference no. 2 of 2000. the  term of the reference was “whether transfer of shri permanand  tiwari, the workman of mada from typist to the post of lower  category is proper? if not what relief he is entitled to? 4. on   notice,   both   the   petitioner   and   respondent  appeared in the labour court and filed their written statements  and also adduced evidences on their behalf. finally, the learned  labour   court,   vide   award   dated   08.02.2008,   held   that   the  workman was transferred from the post of khalasi to the post of  english typist temporarily for a certain period and as such, again  his transfer from the post of english typist to the post of lower  category is proper.  however, the  learned labour court directed  the petitioner for making payment of the difference of salary for  the post of english typist and khalasi for the period he worked as  english typist.5. the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the  learned   labour   court,   dhanbad   committed   serious   error   in  passing the award in favour of the respondent­workman directing  the   petitioner­management   to   make   payment   of   difference   of  salary between the post of “english typist” and   “khalasi” from  11.10.1985   to   03.10.1986,   13.06.1988   to   05.10.1989   and  08.10.1991 to 17.12.1992. the learned counsel for the petitioner  3 further   submits   that   the   respondent­workman   was   allowed   to  work on the post of english typist vide office order no. 20 dated  09.01.1986   (ext.   m2)   on   temporary/adhoc   basis   for   a   survey  work   which   was   going   on   in   dhanbad   sub­division   during  the  relevant   period.   the   petitioner,   thereafter,   worked   as   english  typist  in  terms of office  order no. 20 dated 09.01.1986. it has  been specifically mentioned in the said office order (ext. m2) that  he shall not be paid any additional salary for working on the said  post.   it   is   further   submitted   that   the   claim   of   the   respondent­ workman   for   payment   of   salary   for   the   higher   post   of   english  typist is not tenable in law as the payment of salary is guided by  the   statute   and   in   absence   of   any   such   provision   for   making  payment   of   salary   for   working   on   the   higher   post   on  temporary/adhoc   basis,   the   respondent­workman   cannot   be  entitled for the same. the learned labour court without dealing  with any provision of law in this regard, directed the petitioner­ management to make payment of difference of salary between the  posts of english typist and khalasi to the respondent­workman for  the aforesaid period being contrary to law, is liable to be set­aside.  6. per   contra,   the   learned   counsel   for   the   respondent­ workman   submits   that   the   learned   labour   court   after   going  through   the   evidences   adduced   by   both   the   parties,   came   to   a  conclusion   that   the   petitioner­management   has   taken   work   of  higher post of english typist from the respondent­workman time  to time, therefore, he is entitled to get the payment of salary of  the   said   post.   since   the   petitioner­management   has   taken   the  work of higher post from the respondent­workman, he deserves  the payment of the salary attached to the said post. the award  passed by the learned labour court being completely legal and  justified, does not warrant any interference by this court.   7. having heard the learned counsels for the parties and  going through the documents placed on record, it appears that the  4 petitioner­management vide office order no. 20 dated 09.01.1986  (ext.   m2)   engaged   the   respondent­workman   as   english   typist,  who   was   working   on   the   substantive   post   of   khalasi.   the   said  engagement was made for a survey work which was going on in  dhanbad sub­division. the said office order itself indicates that  the   respondent's   engagement   was   on   temporary/adhoc   basis,  initially   for  a  period  of three   months  and  it  was also  specified  inter   alia   that   the   respondent­workman   shall   not   be   paid   any  additional salary for working on the said post of english typist.  thus, consideration of the said office order is of prime importance  as   by   reasons   of   the   said   office   order   only,   the respondent­workman   worked   on   temporary/adhoc   basis   for  certain   period   on   the   post   of   english   typist.   since,   in   the   said  office  order,  it  was clarified that the  respondent­workman  shall  not   be   given   any   additional   salary   for   working   on   the   post   of  english   typist   and   as   such,   he   could   not   have   expected   salary  attached   to   the   post   of   english   typist,   as   he   was   working  substantively on the post of khalasi. moreover, on perusal of the  impugned award, it does not appear that the labour court before  reaching a conclusion that the respondent­workman deserves the  salary   attached   to   the   higher   post   of   english   typist,   any   law  related therewith has been considered. it is no more  res­integra  that   payment   of   salary,   allowances   etc.   are   guided   by   statute,  rules,   government   policy,   circulars   issued   by   the  government/statutory bodies from time to time. in absence of any  such law, no employee can claim any pecuniary advantage more  than what has been prescribed. a division bench of this court in  the   case   of  “the  state   of  jharkhand   &  ors.  vs.  jai  prakash   singh”   [l.p.a.   no.   162   of   2014],   vide   judgment   dated  12.01.2015, while interpreting the provisions of rule 58 and 103  of jharkhand service code, 2001, has held as under:  “on   close   reading   of   the   aforesaid   provisions,   it  appears   that   when   a   government   servant   holds  5 more   than   one   post,   shall   be   entitled   to  compensatory allowance i.e. officiating pay. in the  instant   case,   the   respondent­writ   petitioner   has  been   given   the   additional   charge   of   deputy  director   and   additional   director   apart   from  discharging   his   duties   on   substantive   posts.   the  notification   for   holding   in­charge   promoted   post  does not amount to promotion of the respondent­ writ petitioner and there is distinction between a  situation where a government servant is promoted  to   higher   post   and   the   one   where   he   is   merely  asked to discharge on the higher post. asking an  officer, who substantially holds lower post merely  to  discharge  the  duties  of  higher  post  cannot  be  treated as promotion. in such a case he does not  get a salary of higher post but gets only what in  service parlance i.e as per jharkhand service code,  2001,   is   called   officiating   pay/compensatory  allowance.   such   situations   are   contemplated  where exigencies of public service necessitate such  arrangements and even consideration of seniority  do not enter into it. the person continues to hold  his   substantive   lower   post   and   only   discharges  duties of the higher post essentially as a stop­gap  arrangement. in the instant case, the respondent­ writ petitioner was asked to hold the higher post  of   deputy   director/additional   director   but   the  regular promotion was affected after convening of  the   departmental   promotion   committee.   so  convening of departmental promotion committee  always precedes the regular promotion and in the  departmental   promotion   committee   the   criteria  for promotion is looked into and eligible candidate  within the zone of consideration are considered for  promotion.   in   the   case   at   hand,   the   respondent­ writ   petitioner   was   regularly   promoted   vide  notification   dated   28.05.2009   and   16.12.2009  under annexures 3 and 6 respectively. therefore,  the promotion affected in the year 2009 pursuant  to departmental promotion committee cannot be  antedated to anterior date. otherwise that would  create anomalous position.”8. in   the   present   case,   the   reference   made   by   the  appropriate government was as to “whether the transfer of shri  premanand tiwari, the workman of mada from typist to the post  of lower category is proper? if not what relief he is entitled to?”  even considering the aforesaid terms of reference, it appears that  the   labour   court   travelled   beyond   the   terms   of   reference   and  passed   the   award   directing   the   petitioner   to   make   payment   of  6 difference of salary between the post of english typist and khalasi  to the  respondent­workman  for working on  the post  of english  typist on temporary/adhoc basis for certain period, which is not  permissible under law.   9. in   view   of   the   aforesaid   discussions,   the   impugned  award dated 08.02.2008 passed by the labour court, dhanbad in  reference no. 2 of 2000 cannot be sustained in law and the same  is accordingly quashed and set­aside.  10. the writ petition is accordingly allowed and disposed  of.  (rajesh shankar, j.) manish/a.f.r.
Judgment:

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(L) No. 4886 of 2008 ­­­­­ Mineral Area Development Authority, Dhanbad, a Body Corporate  constituted under Bihar Coal Mining Area Development Authority  Act, 1986 having its head office at Luby Circular Road, P.O. & P.S.­ Dhanbad,   Town   &   District­Dhanbad,   through   its   Managing  Director   namely,   Md.   Badruzzaman   Ansari,   son   of   Late   Abdul  Ghaffar  Ansari,   resdient of MADA Bunglow, L.C. Road, Hirapur,  Dhanbad, P.O., P.S., Town & District­Dhanbad  … Petitioner Versus Premanand Tiwari, son of Late Ram Ganesh Tiwari, resident of  Mauza­J.C. Malick Road, P.S.­Hirapur, P.O. & District­Dhanbad. At  present   posted   as   Khalasi   under   Mineral   Area   Development  Authority, Dhanbad ...  … Respondent ­­­­­ CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR  ­­­­­ For the Petitioner­MADA : Mr. Bhawesh Kumar, Advocate   Mr. Ravi Kumar, Advocate      For Respondent­Workman  : Mr. Ajay Kumar Singh, Advocate       ­­­­­ Order No. 06 Dated: 24.07.2017 Heard the learned counsels for the parties.  2. The   present   writ   petition   has   been   filed   by   the  petitioner for quashing the award dated 08.02.2008 passed by the  learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court Dhanbad in Reference No.  2 of 2000, whereby  the petitioner­management has been directed  to make payment of difference of salary for the post of English  Typist   and   Khalasi   to   the   respondent­workman   for   the   period  between 1985 and 1992 during which he had worked as English  Typist on temporary/adhoc basis, although he was appointed on  the   Grade­IV   post   of   Khalasi   under   Mineral   Area   Development  Authority.   3. The   factual   background   of   the   case   is   that   the  workman/respondent was appointed in Class­IV post of Khalasi in  the   year  1983.  Subsequently, vide office order no. 20/1985­86,  the management directed the respondent to perform the duty of  2 English Typist for three months or till the further order, however,  with a condition that he would not be paid any additional salary.  Thereafter,   the   respondent   worked   as   English   Typist   from  11.10.1985   to   03.10.1986,   13.06.1988   to   05.10.1989   and  08.10.1991 to 17.12.1992, but he was paid the salary of Khalasi.  Subsequently, vide office order dated 04.09.1998, the respondent  was sent back to the post of Khalasi. The respondent, thereafter,  raised an industrial dispute which was referred by the appropriate  Government   to   the   learned   Labour   Court,   Dhanbad   vide  notification   no.   7/Shrama­D­31011/99/L&E­666   dated  28.12.1999 which was numbered as Reference No. 2 of 2000. The  term of the reference was “Whether transfer of Shri Permanand  Tiwari, the workman of MADA from Typist to the post of lower  category is proper? If not what relief he is entitled to? 4. On   notice,   both   the   petitioner   and   respondent  appeared in the Labour Court and filed their written statements  and also adduced evidences on their behalf. Finally, the learned  Labour   Court,   vide   award   dated   08.02.2008,   held   that   the  workman was transferred from the post of Khalasi to the post of  English Typist temporarily for a certain period and as such, again  his transfer from the post of English Typist to the post of lower  category is proper.  However, the  learned Labour Court directed  the petitioner for making payment of the difference of salary for  the post of English Typist and Khalasi for the period he worked as  English Typist.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the  learned   Labour   Court,   Dhanbad   committed   serious   error   in  passing the award in favour of the respondent­workman directing  the   petitioner­management   to   make   payment   of   difference   of  salary between the post of “English Typist” and   “Khalasi” from  11.10.1985   to   03.10.1986,   13.06.1988   to   05.10.1989   and  08.10.1991 to 17.12.1992. The learned counsel for the petitioner  3 further   submits   that   the   respondent­workman   was   allowed   to  work on the post of English Typist vide office order no. 20 dated  09.01.1986   (Ext.   M2)   on   temporary/adhoc   basis   for   a   survey  work   which   was   going   on   in   Dhanbad   Sub­Division   during  the  relevant   period.   The   petitioner,   thereafter,   worked   as   English  Typist  in  terms of office  order no. 20 dated 09.01.1986. It has  been specifically mentioned in the said office order (Ext. M2) that  he shall not be paid any additional salary for working on the said  post.   It   is   further   submitted   that   the   claim   of   the   respondent­ workman   for   payment   of   salary   for   the   higher   post   of   English  Typist is not tenable in law as the payment of salary is guided by  the   statute   and   in   absence   of   any   such   provision   for   making  payment   of   salary   for   working   on   the   higher   post   on  temporary/adhoc   basis,   the   respondent­workman   cannot   be  entitled for the same. The learned Labour Court without dealing  with any provision of law in this regard, directed the petitioner­ management to make payment of difference of salary between the  posts of English Typist and Khalasi to the respondent­workman for  the aforesaid period being contrary to law, is liable to be set­aside.  6. Per   contra,   the   learned   counsel   for   the   respondent­ workman   submits   that   the   Learned   Labour   Court   after   going  through   the   evidences   adduced   by   both   the   parties,   came   to   a  conclusion   that   the   petitioner­management   has   taken   work   of  higher post of English Typist from the respondent­workman time  to time, therefore, he is entitled to get the payment of salary of  the   said   post.   Since   the   petitioner­management   has   taken   the  work of higher post from the respondent­workman, he deserves  the payment of the salary attached to the said post. The award  passed by the learned Labour Court being completely legal and  justified, does not warrant any interference by this Court.   7. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties and  going through the documents placed on record, it appears that the  4 petitioner­management vide office order no. 20 dated 09.01.1986  (Ext.   M2)   engaged   the   respondent­workman   as   English   Typist,  who   was   working   on   the   substantive   post   of   Khalasi.   The   said  engagement was made for a survey work which was going on in  Dhanbad Sub­Division. The said office order itself indicates that  the   respondent's   engagement   was   on   temporary/adhoc   basis,  initially   for  a  period  of three   months  and  it  was also  specified  inter   alia   that   the   respondent­workman   shall   not   be   paid   any  additional salary for working on the said post of English Typist.  Thus, consideration of the said office order is of prime importance  as   by   reasons   of   the   said   office   order   only,   the respondent­workman   worked   on   temporary/adhoc   basis   for  certain   period   on   the   post   of   English   Typist.   Since,   in   the   said  office  order,  it  was clarified that the  respondent­workman  shall  not   be   given   any   additional   salary   for   working   on   the   post   of  English   Typist   and   as   such,   he   could   not   have   expected   salary  attached   to   the   post   of   English   Typist,   as   he   was   working  substantively on the post of Khalasi. Moreover, on perusal of the  impugned award, it does not appear that the Labour Court before  reaching a conclusion that the respondent­workman deserves the  salary   attached   to   the   higher   post   of   English   Typist,   any   law  related therewith has been considered. It is no more  res­integra  that   payment   of   salary,   allowances   etc.   are   guided   by   statute,  rules,   Government   policy,   circulars   issued   by   the  Government/statutory bodies from time to time. In absence of any  such law, no employee can claim any pecuniary advantage more  than what has been prescribed. A Division Bench of this Court in  the   case   of  “The  State   of  Jharkhand   &  Ors.  Vs.  Jai  Prakash   Singh”   [L.P.A.   No.   162   of   2014],   vide   judgment   dated  12.01.2015, while interpreting the provisions of Rule 58 and 103  of Jharkhand Service Code, 2001, has held as under:  “On   close   reading   of   the   aforesaid   provisions,   it  appears   that   when   a   Government   servant   holds  5 more   than   one   post,   shall   be   entitled   to  compensatory allowance i.e. officiating pay. In the  instant   case,   the   respondent­writ   petitioner   has  been   given   the   additional   charge   of   Deputy  Director   and   Additional   Director   apart   from  discharging   his   duties   on   substantive   posts.   The  notification   for   holding   in­charge   promoted   post  does not amount to promotion of the respondent­ writ petitioner and there is distinction between a  situation where a Government servant is promoted  to   higher   post   and   the   one   where   he   is   merely  asked to discharge on the higher post. Asking an  officer, who substantially holds lower post merely  to  discharge  the  duties  of  higher  post  cannot  be  treated as promotion. In such a case he does not  get a salary of higher post but gets only what in  service parlance i.e as per Jharkhand Service Code,  2001,   is   called   officiating   pay/compensatory  allowance.   Such   situations   are   contemplated  where exigencies of public service necessitate such  arrangements and even consideration of seniority  do not enter into it. The person continues to hold  his   substantive   lower   post   and   only   discharges  duties of the higher post essentially as a stop­gap  arrangement. In the instant case, the respondent­ writ petitioner was asked to hold the higher post  of   Deputy   Director/Additional   Director   but   the  regular promotion was affected after convening of  the   Departmental   Promotion   Committee.   So  convening of Departmental Promotion Committee  always precedes the regular promotion and in the  Departmental   Promotion   Committee   the   criteria  for promotion is looked into and eligible candidate  within the zone of consideration are considered for  promotion.   In   the   case   at   hand,   the   respondent­ writ   petitioner   was   regularly   promoted   vide  notification   dated   28.05.2009   and   16.12.2009  under Annexures 3 and 6 respectively. Therefore,  the promotion affected in the year 2009 pursuant  to Departmental Promotion Committee cannot be  antedated to anterior date. Otherwise that would  create anomalous position.”

8. In   the   present   case,   the   reference   made   by   the  appropriate Government was as to “whether the transfer of Shri  Premanand Tiwari, the workman of MADA from Typist to the post  of lower category is proper? If not what relief he is entitled to?”  Even considering the aforesaid terms of reference, it appears that  the   Labour   Court   travelled   beyond   the   terms   of   reference   and  passed   the   award   directing   the   petitioner   to   make   payment   of  6 difference of salary between the post of English Typist and Khalasi  to the  respondent­workman  for working on  the post  of English  Typist on temporary/adhoc basis for certain period, which is not  permissible under law.   9. In   view   of   the   aforesaid   discussions,   the   impugned  award dated 08.02.2008 passed by the Labour Court, Dhanbad in  Reference No. 2 of 2000 cannot be sustained in law and the same  is accordingly quashed and set­aside.  10. The writ petition is accordingly allowed and disposed  of.  (Rajesh Shankar, J.) Manish/A.F.R.